40796 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 143 / Thursday, July 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1On April 24, 2020, SDHEC also submitted to 

EPA SIP revisions to Regulations 61–62.1, Section 

I—Definitions; 61–62.1, Section II—Permit 

Requirements; 61–62.1, Section III—Emission 

Inventory and Emissions Statement; 61–62.1, 

Section IV—Source Tests; 61–62.1, Section V— 

Credible Emissions; 61–62.5, Standard No. 2— 

Ambient Air Quality Standards; and 61–62.5, 

Standard 5.2—Control of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX). 

EPA will address these SIP revisions in separate 

actions. 

2EPA previously approved e-notice provisions for 

South Carolina’s PSD program. See 83 FR 64285 

(December 14, 2018). Although the e-notice 

provisions in the State’s NNSR program are being 

proposed for incorporation into the SIP for the first 

time, the April 24, 2020, SIP revisions also include 

updates to the already SIP-approved e-notice 

provisions in South Carolina’s SIP-approved PSD 

program. 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen 

oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 22, 2021. 

Deborah Szaro, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

1. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16116 Filed 7–28–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2020–0524; FRL–8762–01– 

R4] 

Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; 

2018 General Assembly New Source 

Review Update 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

South Carolina, through the South 

Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SCDHEC or 

Department), on April 24, 2020. The SIP 

revisions update the State’s Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR) regulations. Specifically, the 

SIP revisions add and update several 

definitions for consistency with the 

Federal regulations, update public 

participation requirements for PSD, 

clarify the applicability of ‘‘source 

impact analysis’’ for PSD, add an 

emissions offset banking provision for 

NNSR, and make administrative 

updates, such as typographical 

corrections and renumbering. Finally, 

the changes incorporate language that 

addresses the public notice rule 

provisions for NNSR, which removes 

the mandatory requirements to provide 

public notice in a newspaper and 

instead allows for electronic notice (‘‘enotice’’) as an alternate noticing option 

for the State. EPA is proposing to 

approve these revisions pursuant to the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and 

implementing Federal regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 30, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2020–0524 at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include a discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andres Febres, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air and 

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

The telephone number is (404) 562– 

8966. Mr. Febres can also be reached via 

electronic mail at febresmartinez.andres@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What is EPA proposing? 

On April 24, 2020, SDHEC submitted 

SIP revisions to EPA for approval that 

include changes to South Carolina’s 

major source New Source Review (NSR) 

permitting regulations to make them 

more closely align with Federal 

requirements for PSD and NNSR 

permitting; correct typographical errors; 

and update internal references, 

including renumbering throughout both 

regulations. Specifically, these changes 

update South Carolina Regulation 61– 

62.5, Standard No. 7—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Standard 

No. 7.1—Nonattainment New Source 

Review.1 In addition to the changes 

above, the SIP revisions include an 

update to the public noticing 

procedures for South Carolina’s NNSR 

regulations. The public notice 

requirement updates address the 

Federal rule entitled ‘‘Revisions to 

Public Notice Provisions in Clean Air 

Act Permitting Programs,’’ (also referred 

to as the e-Notice Rule) that was 

finalized in 2016. See 81 FR 71613 

(October 18, 2016).2

With certain exceptions described in 

Section III below, EPA is proposing to 

approve the changes submitted by South 

Carolina on April 24, 2020, which 

modify the State’s PSD and NNSR 

programs, as meeting the requirements 

of the Federal NSR program and being 

consistent with the CAA. 

II. Background 

This proposed action seeks to revise 

South Carolina’s PSD and NNSR 

regulations in the federally-approved 

SIP. Many of these changes are 

administrative in nature, including 

updating internal references and 

correcting typographical errors, but they 

do include the adoption of several 

definitions currently in the Federal NSR 

regulations, update public participation 

requirements for PSD, clarify the 

applicability of ‘‘source impact 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 143 / Thursday, July 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40797 

3Effective September 30, 2009 (74 FR 50115), 

EPA established a three-month stay of what is 

commonly known as the Fugitive Emissions Rule. 

The stay was later extended for an additional three 

months, effective December 31, 2009 (74 FR 65692). 

In order to allow for more time for the 

reconsideration and for public comment on any 

potential revisions to the Fugitive Emissions Rule, 

EPA established a longer 18-month stay that became 

effective on March 31, 2010 (75 FR 16012). Finally, 

on March 30, 2011, EPA stayed indefinitely 

portions of the Fugitive Emissions Rule. 

4The December 20, 2016, withdrawal letter can 

be found in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking. 

analysis’’ for PSD, and add an emissions 

offset banking provision for NNSR, 

which will be discussed in further detail 

in Section III below. Additionally, the 

April 24, 2020, SIP revisions also adopt 

e-notice provisions into the State’s 

NNSR regulations. 

On October 5, 2016, EPA finalized the 

revised public notice rule provisions for 

the Federal NSR, Title V, and the Outer 

Continental Shelf permitting programs 

of the CAA. See 81 FR 71613 (October 

18, 2016). The new provisions removed 

the mandatory requirement to provide 

public notice of a draft air permit 

through publication in a local 

newspaper. Instead, these provisions 

allow for an internet-based ‘‘e-notice’’ 

option for permitting authorities 

implementing their own SIP-approved 

permitting programs and EPA-approved 

Title V programs. However, permitting 

authorities are not required to adopt enotice. Nothing in the final rule 

prevents a permitting authority from 

continuing to use newspaper 

notification and/or from supplementing 

an e-notice with newspaper 

notifications and/or additional means of 

notification. When e-notice is provided, 

EPA’s rule requires electronic access (eaccess) to the draft permit. Generally, 

state and local agencies intend to post 

the draft permits and public notices in 

a designated location on their agency 

websites, which is accessible to anyone 

in the general public. For the noticing 

of draft permits issued by permitting 

authorities with EPA-approved 

programs, the rule simply requires the 

permitting authority to use ‘‘a consistent 

noticing method’’ for all permit notices 

under the specific permitting program. 

E-notice is already being practiced by 

many permitting authorities, including 

South Carolina in their PSD program, 

because it enables them to communicate 

permitting and other affected actions to 

the public more quickly and efficiently 

while lowering costs by eliminating or 

minimizing newspaper publications. A 

full description of the Federal e-notice 

provisions is available in EPA’s October 

18, 2016 final rulemaking notice. See 81 

FR 71613. 

III. Analysis of State’s Submittal 

As mentioned above, the April 24, 

2020, SIP revisions include changes to 

South Carolina’s PSD and NNSR 

regulations. Many of these changes are 

administrative in nature, including 

updating internal references, correcting 

typographical errors, and renumbering 

paragraphs. However, the SIP revisions 

do include several changes intended to 

make South Carolina’s major source 

NSR regulations more closely align with 

the Federal major source NSR 

regulations, including the adoption of 

several definitions, and updating of 

other definitions, that are currently in 

the Federal NSR regulations. Included 

below in Sections III.A. and III.B. are 

more details on the key updates 

proposed for adoption into the South 

Carolina SIP. 

A. Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

The April 24, 2020, SIP revisions 

include the following key changes 

within the State’s current SIP-approved 

PSD regulations in order to more closely 

align with the Federal PSD regulations: 

(1) Updating the definition of ‘‘Building, 

structure, facility or installation;’’ (2) 

Deleting the mention of fugitive 

emissions from the definition of ‘‘Major 

modification’’ and ‘‘Net emissions 

increase;’’ (3) Adding a definition for 

‘‘Pollution prevention;’’ (4) Updating 

the ‘‘Exceptions’’ section to clarify the 

applicability of the ‘‘Source Impact 

Analysis’’ section of the PSD regulations 

in regards to the 2015 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS); (5) Updating the definition of 

‘‘Monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting;’’ and (6) Updating the public 

participation requirements for PSD, 

including those for plantwide 

applicability limits (PALs) permits 

under PSD. More details are included 

below. 

Under Section (B), Definitions, the 

definition of ‘‘Building, structure, 

facility or installation’’ was updated by 

renumbering the paragraph from (b)(9) 

to (B)(9)(a) and adding paragraph 

(B)(9)(b) to expand the definition and 

give more details on the applicability for 

onshore activities related to Oil and Gas 

Extraction. These changes more closely 

align the rule with the Federal PSD 

regulation at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(6)(ii), 

and EPA is proposing to approve them 

into the South Carolina SIP. 

Originally found in paragraphs 

(b)(30)(v) and (b)(34)(iii)(d), South 

Carolina’s PSD regulations contained a 

description of fugitive emissions under 

the definitions of ‘‘Major modification’’ 

and ‘‘Net emissions increase.’’ In the 

April 24, 2020, SIP revisions, these two 

paragraphs are renumbered to (B)(30)(e) 

and (B)(34)(c)(ii), respectively, and the 

text is removed and replaced with 

‘‘[Reserved]’’. The Federal PSD 

regulation, specifically at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(2)(v) and (b)(3)(iii)(d), 

contains the language regarding fugitive 

emissions that South Carolina seeks to 

remove from its SIP; however, this 

language in the Federal rules has been 

stayed indefinitely.3 EPA never acted on 

the language found in South Carolina’s 

former paragraphs (b)(30)(v) and 

(b)(34)(iii)(d), because the State 

withdrew its request to adopt it into the 

SIP through a December 20, 2016, 

withdrawal letter.4 Because the 

language was never approved into the 

SIP and the language in the Federal PSD 

regulations is currently stayed, EPA is 

proposing to add paragraphs (B)(30)(e) 

and (B)(34)(c)(ii) to the South Carolina 

SIP as submitted in the April 24, 2020, 

submittal with the ‘‘[Reserved]’’ note in 

them. 

Also, under the Definitions section, 

under paragraph (B)(36), the State 

originally had a ‘‘[Reserved]’’ note. In 

the April 24, 2020, SIP revisions, the 

State deletes the note and adding a 

definition of ‘‘Pollution prevention’’ in 

its place. This definition mirrors that of 

the Federal PSD regulation, found at 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(38), and EPA is 

proposing to approve it into the South 

Carolina SIP. 

Under Section (I), Exemptions, the 

State added new paragraphs at (I)(11)(a) 

and (b), which are meant to clarify the 

applicability of Section (K), Source 

impact analysis. The new paragraphs 

were added to clarify which permit 

applications must comply with Section 

(K) with respect to the 2015 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. Specifically, these new 

paragraphs explain that if a permit 

application was determined by the State 

to be complete on or before October 1, 

2015, the ozone NAAQS with respect to 

which the requirements of Section (K) 

apply is the ozone NAAQS in effect on 

the date the permit application was 

determined to be complete and not the 

2015 ozone NAAQS. These new 

paragraphs also explain that if the State 

had published a public notice with a 

preliminary determination regarding the 

application before December 28, 2015, 

the ozone NAAQS with respect to 

which the requirements of (K) apply is 

the ozone NAAQS in effect at the time 

of first publication of the public notice 

of a preliminary determination on the 

permit application or public notice of 

the draft permit and not the 2015 ozone 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40798 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 143 / Thursday, July 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

5A description of each of these changes to 

Standard No. 7 begins on page 354/500 of the April 

24, 2020, submittal PDF. The submittal can be 

found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. 

6On May 1, 2007, EPA published in the Federal 

Register the 2007 Ethanol Rule (72 FR 24060), 

which amended EPA’s PSD and NNSR regulations 

to exclude ethanol manufacturing facilities that 

produce ethanol by natural fermentation processes 

from the ‘‘chemical process plants’’ category under 

the regulatory definition of ‘‘major stationary 

source.’’ Shortly thereafter, EPA received a petition 

for reconsideration of the 2007 Ethanol Rule 

provisions from Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC), which petition EPA initially denied on 

March 27, 2008. See 73 FR 24174 (March 27, 2008). 

In 2009, EPA received a second petition for 

reconsideration from NRDC, and NRDC also filed a 

petition for judicial review in the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

challenging EPA’s 2008 denial of its first petition 

for reconsideration. The court granted a joint 

motion to hold the case in abeyance, and the case 

has remained in abeyance. On October 21, 2019, 

EPA partially granted and partially denied the 

second petition for reconsideration. See 84 FR 

59743 (November 6, 2019). Specifically, EPA 

granted the request for reconsideration with regard 

to the claim that the 2007 Ethanol Rule did not 

appropriately address the CAA section 193 antibacksliding requirements for nonattainment areas. 

Concurrently, EPA denied the remainder of the 

requests for reconsideration. This means that states 

are now able to adopt the Ethanol Rule provisions 

for their PSD programs, but are generally not 

choosing to do the same for their NNSR programs 

at this time. 

7The June 21, 2021, withdrawal letter can be 

found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. 

8Former paragraph (c)(7)(C)(xx) contains the 

same ethanol exclusion language as (A)(10)(t). 

South Carolina renumbered this paragraph to 

(B)(22)(c)(xx). The June 21, 2021, withdrawal letter 

also withdraws South Carolina’s request for EPA to 

incorporate the ethanol exclusion language at 

(B)(22)(c)(xx) into the South Carolina SIP. 

9At the time of submission, the definitions for 

‘‘Replacement unit’’ and ‘‘Secondary emissions’’ in 

South Carolina’s April 24, 2020, SIP revisions 

matched the then-current Federal NNSR 

regulations. On June 22, 2021, the EPA 

Administrator signed a final rule amending several 

NSR regulations, including the definitions for 

‘‘Replacement unit’’ and ‘‘Secondary emissions.’’ 

This final rule is available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

nsr/final-error-corrections-rule. Although the 

definitions of these two terms in South Carolina’s 

submittal do not exactly match the revised Federal 

definitions, EPA is proposing to approve them into 

the South Carolina SIP given the nature of the 

revisions to these Federal definitions. However, if 

South Carolina wishes to have matching 

definitions, it may submit a SIP revision in the 

future to adopt the revised definitions into its SIP. 

NAAQS. The final rule promulgating 

the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS was 

signed by the EPA Administrator on 

October 1, 2015, and became effective 

on December 28, 2015. See 80 FR 65292 

(October 26, 2015). Given these dates, 

South Carolina’s October 1, 2015, and 

December 28, 2015, deadlines in 

paragraphs (I)(a) and (I)(b), respectively, 

would be appropriate cutoff dates for 

the applicability of Section (K) in regard 

to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 

Additionally, these changes more 

closely align the rule with the Federal 

PSD regulation at 40 CFR 

51.166(i)(11)(i) and (ii). EPA is therefore 

proposing to approve these changes into 

the South Carolina SIP. 

Under Section (R), Source obligations, 

South Carolina updated the definition of 

‘‘Monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting’’ found in paragraph (R)(6) by 

adding paragraphs (R)(6)(c), and 

(R)(6)(g)(i) and (ii). Paragraph (R)(6)(c) 

adds an additional requirements for 

emissions units that are existing electric 

utility steam generating units, and 

Paragraph (R)(6)(g) adds the definition 

of ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ as that term 

is used in Paragraph (R)(6). These 

changes match the Federal PSD 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6)(ii) 

and (r)(6)(vi), respectively, and EPA is 

proposing to approve these changes into 

the South Carolina SIP. 

Finally, under Section (Q), Public 

Participation, South Carolina updates 

the e-notice provisions for PSD. 

Originally found in paragraph (q)(2)(ii), 

the public notice requirements are 

renumbered to (Q)(2)(c) and reworded 

for clarity and consistency with the 

Federal e-notice rule. The updates 

identify website publication on a public 

website selected by the Department as 

the consistent noticing method for draft 

permits subject to public notice under 

its PSD program. The updates note that 

other methods, such as newspapers, 

may be used in addition to website 

publication. South Carolina also 

includes a cross reference to the new enotice provisions of Section (Q) under 

the State’s PALs provisions for PSD to 

maintain the consistent e-noticing 

method of public participation 

throughout its PSD regulations. The 

updated language can be found under 

Section (AA) of Standard No. 7, in 

paragraph (AA)(5). EPA is proposing to 

approve these changes into the South 

Carolina SIP because they are consistent 

with EPA’s e-notice rule. 

All other changes to Standard No. 7 

included in the April 24, 2020, SIP 

revisions are administrative in nature 

and are being proposed for approval 

into the South Carolina SIP.5

B. Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 

7.1—Nonattainment New Source Review 

The April 24, 2020, SIP revisions 

include the following key changes 

within the State’s current SIP-approved 

NNSR regulations to more closely align 

with the Federal NNSR regulations: (1) 

Adding multiple definitions included in 

the Federal NNSR regulations; (2) 

Updating and renumbering existing 

definitions in South Carolina’s SIP; (3) 

Adopting language regarding 

interpollutant trading and banking; and 

(4) Updating the ‘‘Public participation’’ 

requirements for NNSR, including those 

for PALs permits under NNSR. 

Under Section (A), Applicability, 

South Carolina renumbered former 

paragraph (e) to paragraph (A)(10). 

Although most of paragraph (A)(10) is 

appropriate for incorporation into the 

South Carolina SIP and matches the 

current Federal rule, former paragraph 

(e) had a portion of the definition for 

‘‘Chemical process plants,’’ previously 

found at paragraph (e)(T), that was 

never approved in the SIP. In particular, 

the language contained after ‘‘Chemical 

process plant,’’ now renumbered to 

paragraph (A)(10)(t), which states that 

‘‘The term chemical processing plants 

shall not include ethanol production 

facilities that produce ethanol by 

natural fermentation included in NAICS 

codes 325193 or 312140,’’ is not 

currently in the SIP and cannot be 

incorporated due to issues with the 

2007 Federal Ethanol Rule.6 Due to the 

ongoing review of the 2007 Ethanol Rule 

in regards to the Federal NNSR 

regulations, South Carolina withdrew its 

request for EPA to approve the phrase 

‘‘The term chemical processing plants 

shall not include ethanol production 

facilities that produce ethanol by 

natural fermentation included in NAICS 

codes 325193 or 312140’’ in the 

renumbered paragraph (A)(10) through a 

letter dated June 21, 2021.7 8

Under Section (B), Definitions, the 

State adds several definitions that are 

part of the Federal NNSR regulations. 

The new definitions include: Allowable 

emissions; Begin actual construction; 

Building, structure, facility, or 

installation; Temporary clean coal 

technology demonstration project; Clean 

coal technology; Clean coal technology 

demonstration project; Commence; 

Construction; Continuous emissions 

monitoring system; Continuous 

emissions rate monitoring system; 

Continuous parameter monitoring 

system; Electric utility steam generating 

unit; Emissions unit; Federal Land 

Manager; Federally enforceable; 

Fugitive emissions; Necessary 

preconstruction approvals or permits; 

Pollution prevention; Potential to emit; 

Predictive emissions monitoring system; 

Project; Replacement unit; Resource 

recovery facility; Reviewing authority; 

Secondary emissions; and Stationary 

source. Except for the definition for 

‘‘Resource recovery facility,’’ the new 

definitions all match those in the 

Federal NNSR regulation found at 40 

CFR 51.165, and EPA is proposing to 

approve them into the South Carolina 

SIP.9


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 143 / Thursday, July 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40799 

10The Federal NNSR definition of ‘‘Major 

stationary source’’ sets a 70 tpy major source 

threshold for the PM2.5 precursors (Sulfur dioxide, 

Nitrogen oxides, Volatile Organic Compounds, and 

Ammonia) in any serious PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1)(viii) and 

(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C)(2). 

11South Carolina’s SIP prohibits the issuance of 

any permit to construct or modify a source if 

emissions interfere with attainment or maintenance 

of any state or federal standard. See Regulation 61– 

62.1, Section II, Paragraph A.4. 

The new definition for ‘‘Resource 

recovery facility,’’ found in paragraph 

(B)(34) of South Carolina’s Standard No. 

7.1 in the SIP revision, does not match 

the Federal NNSR regulations because 

the Federal rules do not contain a 

definition for this kind of facility. 

However, the new definition merely 

clarifies what constitutes a resource 

recovery facility and does not create a 

new exemption or limitation on the 

applicability of the State’s NNSR 

regulations. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to approve the definition into the South 

Carolina SIP. 

Also, under Section (B), South 

Carolina’s April 24, 2020, SIP revisions 

update and replace two lists, converting 

them into a table format. Specifically, 

the changes involve paragraph 

(B)(22)(a), formerly found in paragraph 

(c)(7)(A), and paragraph (B)(37), 

formerly found in paragraph (c)(14). 

Former paragraph (c)(7)(A), which 

contained the definition of ‘‘Major 

stationary source,’’ used to include a list 

of emissions thresholds for sources in 

certain nonattainment areas under 

paragraphs (c)(7)(A)(i)(a) through (d). 

These thresholds are now recodified in 

the table found in paragraph (B)(22)(a)(i) 

and are expanded for clarity. The 

threshold values and list of pollutants 

are unchanged from the SIP-approved 

version of the rule. Although the 

revision does not add ammonia as a 

precursor to fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5),10 EPA does not believe that this 

will have any negative impact on the 

attainment or maintenance of the PM2.5

NAAQS in the State. This is due to the 

fact that South Carolina does not 

currently have any PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas, and thus, the PM2.5 thresholds in 

this NNSR rule are not currently 

applicable. In the event of an area being 

designated nonattainment for PM2.5 in 

the future, the State would be required 

to submit, among other things, a revised 

NNSR SIP revision that identifies 

ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor. For these 

reasons, EPA believes that the 

recodified table in paragraph 

(B)(22)(a)(i) is appropriate for approval 

into the South Carolina SIP. 

Former paragraph (c)(14) contained a 

definition of ‘‘Significant’’ and included 

a list of emission rates at or above which 

a net emissions increase or the potential 

to emit from a source would be 

considered significant. South Carolina 

renumbered the definition as paragraph 

(B)(37) and created a table containing 

the significant emissions rates. The rates 

in the new table generally match the 

rates in former paragraph (c)(14), except 

for the rates for carbon monoxide (CO) 

and ozone, which are expanded to 

include more stringent rates. For CO, 

South Carolina’s April 24, 2020, SIP 

revisions maintain the old emissions 

rate, now only applicable in marginal 

and moderate nonattainment areas, but 

add a more stringent emissions rate for 

serious nonattainment areas. Similarly, 

for ozone, South Carolina maintains the 

old emissions rate, now applicable only 

for marginal and moderate 

nonattainment areas, but adds more 

stringent rates for serious and severe 

nonattainment areas, as well as for 

extreme nonattainment areas. Given that 

these changes are more stringent than 

the current SIP-approved rule, EPA 

believes that they are appropriate for 

incorporation into the South Carolina 

SIP. 

Under Section (C), which incorporates 

parts of former paragraph (d)—Permit 

requirements, South Carolina’s April 24, 

2020, SIP revisions add additional 

conditions regarding emissions offsets 

and alternative site analysis that need to 

be met in order to grant a permit; adds 

exemptions for ‘‘Temporary emission 

source’’ and ‘‘Secondary emissions;’’ 

and clarifies the requirements of the 

State’s NNSR regulations, in regards to 

major sources and major modifications 

of PM10. 

As part of the changes to Section (C), 

South Carolina includes two new 

paragraphs, (C)(1)(d) and (e). Paragraph 

(C)(1)(d) adds as a condition for a permit 

approval, for the source to obtain a 

positive net air quality benefit in the 

affected area, as determined by 40 CFR 

part 51, Appendix S. Paragraph (C)(1)(e) 

adds a condition for the source to carry 

out an alternative sites analysis in order 

to demonstrate that benefits of the 

proposed source significantly outweigh 

the environmental and social costs 

imposed as a result of its location, 

construction, or modification. 

Under new paragraphs (C)(2) and 

(C)(3), South Carolina adds new 

exemptions for ‘‘Temporary emissions 

source[s]’’ and ‘‘Secondary emissions.’’ 

The exemption for ‘‘Temporary 

emissions source’’ does not exempt 

temporary sources, defined by the State 

as plants or facilities that will be 

relocated outside the nonattainment 

area after a short period of time, from 

obtaining a permit. This change exempts 

these types of sources from meeting the 

requirements of paragraphs (C)(1)(c) and 

(C)(1)(d), which require that the source 

obtain emissions reductions from other 

sources to offset the increase in 

emissions. The exemption for 

‘‘Secondary emissions’’ states that if a 

source is subject to the NNSR regulation 

due to direct emissions from the source, 

the applicable conditions in paragraph 

(C)(1) must also be met for secondary 

emissions; however, secondary 

emissions may be exempt from 

paragraphs (C)(1)(a) (lowest achievable 

emissions rate) and (C)(1)(b) 

(compliance certification). EPA is 

proposing to approve the addition of 

paragraphs (C)(2) and (C)(3) because 

they are consistent with the exemptions 

in Appendix S of 40 CFR part 51 and 

still require preconstruction review for 

temporary sources and sources subject 

to NNSR regulation due to direct 

emissions.11

Finally, the changes to Section (C) 

include a clarification paragraph in 

regards to particulate matter (PM10). In 

particular, paragraph (C)(4) explains 

that the requirements of the State’s 

NNSR regulations, in regards to major 

sources and major modifications of 

PM10, would also apply to major sources 

and major modifications of PM10

precursors. 

Under new Section (D), Offset 

standards, South Carolina incorporates 

several paragraphs that were previously 

parts of former paragraph (d) of the 

State’s NNSR regulations. The SIP 

revisions also adds new paragraphs 

throughout this section for consistency 

with the Federal offset provisions found 

at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3). New paragraphs 

(D)(4), (5), (7), and (8) are consistent 

with federal requirements found in 40 

CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C), (G), and (J), all 

relating to the baseline for determining 

credit for emissions reductions. 

In the April 24, 2020, SIP revisions, 

South Carolina adds new Sections (H) 

through (K) to the State’s NNSR 

regulations. Sections (J) and (K) only 

contain a ‘‘[Reserved]’’ note, to leave 

space for future updates. Sections (H) 

and (I) include South Carolina’s 

adoption of language related to 

interpollutant offsetting and banking of 

emission offsets, respectively. The 

language generally aligns with that of 

the Federal regulations at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(3) and (11), as well as 

Appendix S to Part 51, but does not 

constitute a valid banking and trading 

program because it is missing some of 

the key elements that are required to 

ensure that these offsets are traded and 

banked correctly and utilizing 

permanent, quantifiable, and 

enforceable reductions. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40800 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 143 / Thursday, July 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

12See 83 FR 62998. 

13The final rule is available at https://

www.epa.gov/nsr/final-error-corrections-rule. 

14The April 20, 2021, withdrawal letter can be 

found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. 

15A description of each of these changes to 

Standard No. 7.1 begins on page 357/500 of the 

April 24, 2020, submittal PDF. The submittal can 

be found in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking. 

Additionally, Section (H), 

Interpollutant offsetting, contains 

vacated language from the December 6, 

2018, rule ‘‘Implementation of the 2015 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for Ozone: Nonattainment Area State 

Implementation Plan Requirements’’ 

(2018 Implementation Rule).12 The 

Federal interpollutant offsetting 

provisions found at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(11), as well as Appendix S to 

Part 51 (at paragraph IV.G.5), were 

vacated by the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Circuit) through a January 

29, 2021, court decision. See Sierra Club 

v. EPA, 985 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2021). 

Accordingly, on June 22, 2021, the EPA 

Administrator signed a final rule that, 

among other changes, removes the 

language allowing interprecursor 

trading for ozone and restoring the 

language in the NNSR regulations to the 

form it was in after the EPA’s 2008 

PM2.5 implementation rule.13 As a 

result, South Carolina withdrew its 

request that EPA incorporate Section (H) 

into the SIP through a withdrawal letter 

dated April 20, 2021.14

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

is not proposing to incorporate Section 

(H) into the South Carolina SIP, and is 

proposing to incorporate only the 

addition of Section (I), Banking of 

emissions offsets, with the caveat that 

this does not create an offset banking 

and trading program in the State’s SIP. 

In order for South Carolina to have an 

offsets banking and trading program in 

the SIP, the State must adopt a full 

banking and trading rule that covers 

everything necessary for the program to 

operate correctly and EPA must 

incorporate that rule into the SIP. 

Finally, under Section (M), Public 

participation, South Carolina adds enotice provisions for its NNSR program. 

Originally found in paragraph (d)(7)(iv), 

the public notice requirements are 

renumbered to (M)(2)(d) and revised to 

incorporate EPA’s amendments to the 

Federal public notice requirements 

discussed in Section II of this 

rulemaking. Specifically, South 

Carolina’s April 24, 2020, SIP revisions 

for Standard No. 7.1 identify website 

publication on a public website 

identified by the Department as the 

consistent noticing method for draft 

permits subject to public notice under 

its NNSR program. South Carolina’s enotice provisions for NNSR note that 

other noticing methods, such as 

newspapers, may be used in addition 

(but not as a substitute) to website 

publication. South Carolina also 

includes a cross-reference to the new enotice provisions of Section (M) under 

the State’s PALs provisions for NNSR to 

maintain the consistent e-noticing 

method of public participation 

throughout its NNSR regulations. The 

updated language can be found under 

Section (N) of Standard No. 7.1, in 

paragraph (N)(5). EPA believes that the 

April 24, 2020, SIP revisions meet all 

the requirements of the revised Federal 

e-notice provisions in regards to the 

State’s NNSR regulations, and EPA is 

proposing to incorporate these changes 

into South Carolina’s SIP. 

All other changes for Standard No. 7.1 

included in the April 24, 2020, SIP 

revisions are administrative in nature.15

Except for the parts of subparagraphs 

(A)(10)(t) and (B)(22)(c)(xx) noted above, 

as they relate to the Ethanol Rule 

Provisions of the Federal NNSR 

regulations, and Section (H), as it relates 

to the Interpollutant Offsetting, all other 

changes to Standard No. 7.1 submitted 

through South Carolina’s April 24, 2020 

SIP revisions are being proposed for 

incorporation into the State’s 

implementation plan. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with the 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

South Carolina’s Regulation 61–62.5, 

Standards No. 7—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration, and Standard 

No. 7.1—Nonattainment New Source 

Review, both state effective on April 24, 

2020, with the exception of paragraph 

(H), and a portion of paragraphs 

(A)(10)(t), and (B)(22)(c)(xx), from 

Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7.1, as 

discussed above. EPA has made and 

will continue to make, these materials 

generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 4 office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. Proposed Action 

As described above, EPA is proposing 

to approve, with some exceptions, the 

changes to the South Carolina 

Regulation 61–62.5, Standards No. 7— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 

and Standard No. 7.1—Nonattainment 

New Source Review. These changes 

were submitted by South Carolina on 

April 24, 2020. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. This action merely proposes to 

approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

Because this action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 143 / Thursday, July 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules 40801 

imposed by state law, this SIP approval 

for the State of South Carolina does not 

have Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). Therefore, this 

action will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. The Catawba Indian Nation 

(CIN) Reservation is located within the 

boundary of York County, South 

Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba 

Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code 

Ann. 27–16–120 (Settlement Act), ‘‘all 

state and local environmental laws and 

regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian 

Nation] and Reservation and are fully 

enforceable by all relevant state and 

local agencies and authorities.’’ The CIN 

also retains authority to impose 

regulations applying higher 

environmental standards to the 

Reservation than those imposed by state 

law or local governing bodies, in 

accordance with the Settlement Act. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: July 15, 2021. 

John Blevins, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15536 Filed 7–28–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 4 

[PS Docket No. 15–80; Report No. 3179; 

FRS 39529] 

Petition for Reconsideration of Action 

in Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for Reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: A Petition for Reconsideration 

(Petition) has been filed in the 

Commission’s rulemaking proceeding 

by Ian P. Culver, on behalf of California 

Public Utilities Commission. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must 

be filed on or before August 13, 2021. 

Replies to an opposition must be filed 

on or before August 23, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Saswat Misra, Attorney-Advisor, 

Cybersecurity & Communications 

Reliability Division, Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418– 

0944 or via email at Saswat.Misra@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

document, Report No. 3179, released 

July 19, 2021. The full text of the 

Petition can be accessed online via the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. The Commission will not send a 

Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

submission to Congress or the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being 

adopted by the Commission. 

Subject: In the Matter of Amendments 

to Part 4 of the Commission’s Rules 

Concerning Disruptions to 

Communications, published at 86 FR 

22796, April 29, 2021, in PS Docket No. 

15–80. This document is being 

published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). 

See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), 

(g). 

Number of Petitions Filed: 1. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16126 Filed 7–28–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS